12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          People’s ability to appraise claims about treatment effects is crucial for informed decision-making. Our objective was to systematically map this area of research in order to (a) provide an overview of interventions targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess treatment claims and (b) to identify assessment tools used to evaluate people’s understanding of these concepts. The findings of this review provide a starting point for decisions about which key concepts to address when developing new interventions, and which assessment tools should be considered.

          Methods

          We conducted a systematic mapping review of interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts important for people to be able to assess treatment claims. A systematic literature search was done by a reserach librarian in relevant databases. Judgement about inclusion of studies and data collection was done by at least two researchers. We included all quantitative study designs targeting one or more of the key concepts, and targeting patients, healthy members of the public, and health professionals. The studies were divided into four categories: risk communication and decision aids, evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal, understanding of controlled trials, and science education. Findings were summarised descriptively.

          Results

          We included 415 studies, of which the interventions and assessment tools we identified included only a handful of the key concepts. The most common key concepts in interventions were “Treatments usually have beneficial and harmful effects,” “Treatment comparisons should be fair,” “Compare like with like,” and “Single studies can be misleading.” A variety of assessment tools were identified, but only four assessment tools included 10 or more key concepts.

          Conclusions

          There is great potential for developing learning and assessment tools targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess claims about treatment effects. There is currently no instrument covering assessment of all these key concepts.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0389-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Validation of a decisional conflict scale.

          The study objective was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a decisional conflict scale (DCS) that elicits: 1) health-care consumers' uncertainty in making a health-related decision; 2) the factors contributing to the uncertainty; and 3) health-care consumers' perceived effective decision making. The DCS was developed in response to the lack of instruments available to evaluate health-care-consumer decision aids and to tailor decision-supporting interventions to particular consumer needs. The scale was evaluated with 909 individuals deciding about influenza immunization or breast cancer screening. A subsample of respondents was retested two weeks later. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.81. Internal consistency coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.92. The DCS discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who had strong intentions either to accept or to decline invitations to receive influenza vaccine or breast cancer screening and those whose intentions were uncertain. The scale also discriminated significantly (p < 0.0002) between those who accepted or rejected immunization and those who delayed their decisions to be immunized. There was a weak inverse correlation (r = -0.16, p < 0.05) between the DCS and knowledge test scores. The psychometric properties of the scale are acceptable. It is feasible and easy to administer. Evaluations of responsiveness to change and validation with more difficult decisions are warranted.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validation of the Fresno test of competence in evidence based medicine.

            To describe the development and validation of a test of knowledge and skills in evidence based medicine. Cross sectional study. Family practice residency programme in California; a list server for those who teach evidence based medicine; and an evidence based medicine seminar series. Family practice residents and faculty members (n=43); volunteers self identified as experts in evidence based medicine (n=53); family practice teachers (19) beginning a seminar series on evidence based medicine. The Fresno test is a performance based measure for use in medical education that assesses a wide range of evidence based medicine skills. Open ended questions are scored with standardised grading rubrics. Calculation skills are assessed by fill in the blank questions. Inter-rater reliability, internal reliability, item analyses, and construct validity. Inter-rater correlations ranged from 0.76 to 0.98 for individual items. Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Item difficulties ranged from moderate to difficult, all with positive and strong ability to discriminate between candidates. Experts scored consistently higher than novices. On the 212 point test, the novice mean was 95.6 and the expert mean was 147.5 (P<0.001). On individual items, a higher proportion of experts than novices earned passing scores on 15 of the 17 items. The Fresno test is a reliable and valid test for detecting the effect of instruction in evidence based medicine. Its use in other settings requires further exploration.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Rapid assessment of literacy levels of adult primary care patients.

              Health education materials, medical instructions, consent forms, and self-report questionnaires are often given to patients with little regard for their ability to read them. Reading ability is rarely tested in medical settings. The Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) was developed as a quick screening tool to assist physicians in identifying patients with limited reading skills and in estimating patient reading levels. This information can be used to tailor materials and instructions to patients' abilities. The REALM and the reading sections of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test-Revised and the Slosson Oral Reading Test were used to test reading ability in 207 adults in six public and private primary care clinics. REALM scores correlated highly with those of the standardized reading tests. The REALM, which takes three to five minutes to administer and score, appears to be a practical instrument to estimate patient literacy in primary care, patient education, and medical research.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +47 41294057 , astrid.austvoll-dahlgren@fhi.no
                nsallen2000@yahoo.com
                semakuladaniel@gmail.com
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                29 December 2016
                29 December 2016
                2016
                : 5
                : 215
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, BOKS 7004 St. Olavsplass, 0130 Oslo, Norway
                [2 ]Makerere University College of Health Sciences, New Mulago Hospital Complex, P.O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1896-197X
                Article
                389
                10.1186/s13643-016-0389-z
                5200965
                28034307
                65b5fbbc-7f66-4777-b859-0748223820f3
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 29 February 2016
                : 22 November 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: The norwegian research council
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Public health
                health literacy,evidence-based medicine,controlled trials,patient education,decision making

                Comments

                Comment on this article